IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A No. 1933 OF 2013 BETWEEN Smt. Chikkathayamma W/o B. Chikkaboraiah @ Shivaraj Aged about 48 years R/o Byrashettihalli Village Virupakshipura Hobli Channapatana Taluk Ramanagara District-571511.
... Appellant (By Sri Chandrashekar .H.B – Advocate - Absent) AND 1. Kalegowda S/o Late Kunnahuchegowda Aged about 45 years R/o Byrashettihalli Village Virupakshipura Hobli Channapatana Taluk Ramanagara District-571511.
2. Karihucchegowda S/o Late Kunnahuchegowda Aged about 53 years R/o Adugodi Police Quartres Adugodi Bangalore – 560030.
3. Thammanna S/o Late Kunnahuchegowda Aged about 32 years R/o Byrashettihalli Village Virupakshipura Hobli Channapatana Taluk Ramanagara District-571511.
4. Rajamma W/o Puchari Chikkahucchaiah Aged about 60 years R/o Kodamballi Village Channapatana Taluk Ramanagara District-571511.
5. Smt. Hucchamma W/o Kunnahucchegowda Aged about 70 years R/o Byrashettihalli Village Virupakshipura Hobli Channapatana Taluk Ramanagara District-571511.
6. Smt. Hucchamma W/o Mari @ Sothappa Aged about 60 years R/o No.42, 6th Cross Temple Road Kodandaramapura Malleshwaram Bangalore – 560003.
7. Shanmukha S/o Kunnahucchegowda Aged about 34 years R/o Byrashettihalli Village Virupakshipura Hobli Channapatana Taluk Ramanagara District-571511.
... Respondents (By Sri T. Seshagiri Rao–Advocate for R-1 to R-7 (absent)) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 passed in R.A. No. 98/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channapattana, Ramanagara district, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2009 passed in O.S.No. 111/1994 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) and JMFC, Channapatna.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT The suit is of the year 1994, which came to be decreed on 14.08.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in the suit, defendants filed R.A.No.98/2012. The said appeal came to be allowed by order dated 05.10.2013 setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.111/1994. Aggrieved by the said order passed in R.A.No.98/2012, plaintiff has preferred the present appeal as on 04.12.2013 seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.98/2012 and thereby confirm the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.111/1994.
2. When the matter is called out, the counsel for appellant – plaintiff remains absent. There is also no representation on his behalf. It appears that appellant is not interested to prosecute the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE KS